A “GRACE PERIOD” for asylum-seekers living in temporary accommodation while their claims are assessed should not be limited to a pilot exercise, the Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, has argued.
She was speaking during the Second Reading of the Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill in the House of Lords last Friday. The Private Member’s Bill, from Baroness Lister (Labour), would, if passed, bring about a pilot extension of the notice period for the eviction of temporarily housed asylum-seekers from 28 days to 56, to prevent homelessness and to allow enough time to apply for Universal Credit and other benefits.
Dr Francis-Dehqani welcomed the pilot, which was among the recommendations of the recent Commission on the Integration of Refugees, of which she was a member.
“As we have heard, even 28 days simply is not enough to find new accommodation, seek employment, and navigate the welfare system, especially if someone is supporting a family. Without a longer period, we are setting people up to fail, which is no strategy at all for integration. Stability is key for families, particularly for children and young people.”
She asked the Government whether there was further scope for simplification of the scheme for applicants.
Concluding, Dr Francis-Dehqani spoke about the Home Office’s use of “grace period” to refer to the move-on period that was being extended under the Bill. “Grace in the theological sense — and, I argue, the true sense — is never for a limited pilot period, nor for when it is easy or convenient.
“I therefore encourage the Government to go further and make this extension to 56 days a permanent fixture — a true period of grace in the asylum system.”
A year ago, the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, was the lead signatory of a letter from 44 religious leaders calling on the Conservative government to address the leave-to-remain status of asylum-seekers, and the increasing risk of homelessness in winter (News, 22 December 2023).
The letter asked, first, for the Home Office to abide by its policy that refugees had a minimum of 28 days from receiving their biometric residence permit before having to leave their accommodation; second, that all councils and relevant authorities be informed that the notice of decision for the asylum was adequate evidence to apply for housing and other support; and, third, that the eviction notice period be extended from 28 days to 56, to allow enough time to apply for Universal Credit and other benefits.
Addressing the Lords in the same debate, Bishop Mullally said that, for these reasons, she supported the Bill. She welcomed work with the Government on this matter and subsequent “simplification of the letters that refugees receive”.
“Several people had errors with their biometric residence permit which meant that they could not access the support they needed, and were still evicted at the end of their support period,” she said. “These mistakes are incredibly difficult to correct, particularly if it is a spelling mistake.”
Bishop Mullally asked whether the pilot extension would be evaluated, “and whether the Government continue to work with newly recognised refugees, so that the communication improvement continues. Finally, I wonder what action the Government are taking to ensure that the administrative systems are appropriately resourced so that they are efficient.”
Responding to these points, the Minister of State for the Home Office, Lord Hanson of Flint, said: “We expect that measure to be in place until June 2025. The Government have put that pilot in place to support local authorities during a period when we expect an increased volume of asylum decisions to be made.”
He continued: “We want to look at the provision of asylum move-on liaison officers to support granting asylum and successfully moving on from asylum accommodation and support. We have put in place £2.8 million additional outcome-based funding for select local authorities to support move-on according to prioritised need. We are looking at changes to internal processes with the move-on period and at the downstream legality of changing those issues.”